Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

62 C H A P T E R 9 This project reviewed the existing literature to identify documented connections between smart growth and urban goods movement as well as current research needs, conducted focus- group meetings with stakeholders in two different jurisdictions, and completed model runs to test current regional modeling sensitivity to smart-growth land-use patterns of truck behavior. Reviewing the existing literature, we identified five ways in which smart growth and urban goods movement are related and a handful of research questions relevant to each. These findings were supported in the focus-group discussions (see Table 19). Despite a clear tension identified between truck drivers, who claim a need for additional parking and loading, and planners, who claim to be doing their best to balance that desire with other competing interests, no research is available that examines or develops an optimal bal- ance of parking space and time regulations. The potential for conflicts between trucks and non-motorized modes is a primary concern for urban goods movement in smart-growth envi- ronments, but it has hardly been considered in the literature. Another area of tension identified by this work is the trip reduction and associated environmental gains fostered by mixed-use development with the lifestyle conflicts of having differing uses in close proximity. Indeed, some other methods of achieving these types of gains—including off-hours deliveries or larger, more efficient vehicles—have specific impacts (e.g., on air quality or noise pollution) that make them undesirable in mixed-use environments. Because of the risks identified in innovative distribution methods, additional research is needed to illustrate their benefits and to identify ways to remove some of the existing barriers. Finally, efforts to manage the transportation system through real- time information and metered access are promising solutions for reducing congestion and thus reducing costs and environmental impacts. These efforts should be expanded to the extent possible to goods-movement services. The results of the six model runs suggest that there are benefits directly to, and stemming from, goods movement. The largest benefits can be realized when a smart-growth land-use scenario is coupled with commensurate transit and non-motorized transportation investments. For trucking and shipping firms, the benefits include a reduction in overall travel distances and hours on the road, both of which result in lower costs. Secondary benefits related to overall travel include reductions in pollutant emissions, especially carbon dioxide, as well as the potential economic gains from a more efficient and productive goods-movement system. 9.1 Implications for Freight Planning The modeling results show promising benefits to and from goods movement under a smart- growth land-use configuration. The urban-planning profession, particularly those interested in goods movement, should attempt to find ways to better explain the benefits of smart-growth Conclusions

Conclusions 63 policies to a sometimes skeptical freight community. Despite the benefits in terms of time and efficiency gains, as well as emissions reductions, planners should continue to diligently address the very real issues raised through focus-group discussions. Improving truck parking, providing proximate access from warehousing and distribution centers to urban centers, and incentivizing and allowing deliveries in off-peak periods will not only benefit the freight haulers but will also increase the benefits described through the modeling results—that is, with more focus on freight planning in the urban context, greater gains could be achieved. The modeling results consistently showed that improvements to smart-growth transporta- tion infrastructure, both transit and non-motorized, produced greater benefits to trucks than roadway investments. With limited financial resources, these types of investments could be sup- ported over capacity enhancements because roadway facilities, even those that appear to be mostly designed to accommodate freight movements, generally have far greater benefits to pas- senger vehicles and may, as the modeling results show, reduce benefits to freight. In consideration Table 19. Five key areas and examples of their existing gaps. Research Area Example of Exisng Gap(s) Focus Group Support Access, parking, and loading zones What is the appropriate amount of parking or size and number of loading zones to dedicate to goods movement vehicles? Can me of day changes relieve demand for space? What is the opmal balance of parking space and me regulaons? There is a clear tension between truck drivers, who claim a need for addional parking and loading space, and planners, who claim to balance that desire with other compeng interests. Road channelizaon, bicycle, and pedestrian facilies Does the number of crashes between goods movement vehicles and non motorized modes increase when these vehicles coexist more frequently? What are appropriate tools or configuraons to reduce modal conflicts? The potenal for conflicts between trucks and non motorized modes is a primary concern for urban goods movement in smart growth environments. Land use mix How do the environmental benefits of passenger trip reducons associated with mixed uses balance against the environmental costs of me restricons on goods movement vehicles necessitated by their impacts on residences and other businesses? Can vehicle sizes be changed? What incenves encourage freight trip consolidaon? Does density affect truck trip generaon? Do mixed land uses change truck trip generaon rates? How can trip reducon and associated environmental gains fostered by mixed use development be balanced with the lifestyle conflicts of having differing uses in close proximity? Some methods of achieving these types of gains—including off hours deliveries or larger, more efficient vehicles—have specific impacts (air quality or noise polluon) that make them undesirable in mixed use environments. Logiscs Because of the risks associated with innovave distribuon methods, addional research is needed to illustrate their benefit and to idenfy ways to remove some of the exisng barriers, including the potenal offer of government subsidies. Network system management How can we best extend real me informaon and metered access to goods movement vehicles? Can transportaon demand management methods apply to urban goods movement? Efforts to manage the transportaon system through real me informaon and metered access are promising soluons to reducing congeson and thus reducing costs and environmental impacts, and they merit further tesng and evaluaon.

64 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement of freight, strategies that remove other vehicles from the roadway, maintain or preserve the existing system, or add strategic capacity for a defined purpose should be preferred over general roadway expansion. Greater attention should be placed on freight planning for local streets. As seen in the modeling results, truck miles of travel remain unchanged on local facilities regardless of the land-use or transportation-investment scenario. Trucks will need to continue to leave their warehouses and use local streets to connect to the main parts of the transportation system; many trucks will also continue to need to make pick-ups and deliveries on local streets—for example, waste management or parcel delivery. More consideration for interaction and con- flict resolution between freight and other modes of transportation would help facilitate better movement of freight. Land-use planning should also consider the most appropriate locations for warehousing and distribution centers, particularly siting them in close proximity to urban centers. The model- ing results show that truck miles of travel, though lower under a smart-growth land-use sce- nario with commensurate transportation improvements than the alternative, are higher due to increased travel because of the overall demand for access to urban centers. Indeed, trips from warehousing and distribution centers to concentrated areas of activity are shown to be longer in both distance and travel times under the modeling. Delivery trips from locations that are closer to urban centers or at times when demand is lower for transportation facilities would also improve the benefits of smart-growth developments for freight. Finally, there are a variety of impacts that may not translate into regional benefits but may make smart-growth land-use developments more attractive to residents and employees, and may also reduce the tensions between the freight community, planning professionals, and other interests. Questions remain about how to handle freight interaction with other modes at the microscale and how to better resolve issues of the last mile in terms of conflicts with other modes, especially in terms of parking and noise. Nonetheless, for the system as a whole, the modeling results described in this study clearly suggest that smart-growth investments benefit truck movements. 9.2 Implications for Truck Modeling One of the most pronounced results seen from the modeling conducted for this study is that trip length and travel times from goods-dependent analysis zones to smart-growth analysis zones are longer under a smart-growth land-use scenario. While this result appears entirely plausible, it is perhaps overly pronounced. Because truck trip generation is currently based on employment, the rise in employment concentrations in smart-growth areas translates into more trucks attempting to travel to those areas within the modeling framework. However, if better truck trip-generation data were available, the number of trucks used to make deliveries to these areas would potentially stay the same, or even conceivably be reduced, if trucking firms switched to larger delivery vehicles to meet demand. In addition to truck-trip generation, truck models generally do not account for truck mode choice. However, as was demonstrated through the focus groups, trucking firms will use any vehicle that they need to, despite a preference for larger vehicles for the sake of efficiency. Allow- ing models to account for mode shift from large to medium trucks and vice versa would better represent goods movement in urban settings. A further issue that may lead to the overestimation of truck travel, delay, and longer travel times to smart-growth areas may be caused by the lack of explicit tours for trucks in most truck

Conclusions 65 models. Because a four-step model represents individual trips, it cannot account for the syner- gies apparent in routing and trip planning available through the sophistication of logistics firms. Most models do not adequately account for the need for freight to travel on lower-level, local streets for purposes such as warehouse access and local deliveries. Microscale models may address this, which will better reflect many smart-growth impacts. Finally, microscale or intra-zonal issues of parking or modal conflicts, which may be the easiest to resolve because they can be handled as terminal costs without the need for wholesale model redevelopments, require research and data that are not currently available to properly inform an understanding of the impacts of dense land use on goods movement. While some truck stakeholders in the focus groups theorized that a reduction of general purpose lanes to accommodate a bicycle lane would reduce truck flows, there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove such a claim and account for it in modeling. It is possible that future truck models will include a non-motorized network and will be able to forecast non-motorized travel, which may be able to account for truck-bicycle and truck-pedestrian congestion.